The Judgment Seat of Christ or God? A Brief Study of Romans 14:10

 

The Judgment Seat of Christ or the Judgment Seat of God?  A Brief Study of Romans 14:10

 

Although I am not a textual critic, I do have some tools at my disposal.  Without doubt the internet’s availability of online resources is a huge help.  One of the  most difficult issues for anyone who wants to study a textual critical issue in the Bible is deciphering the textual critical symbols and notes in the footnote apparatus of critical editions of the Greek New Testament.

I became interested in studying this verse after sitting in church on October 13^th, 2024 and hearing the reading of the text for a sermon given.  I have a habit of following along in my King James Version just to see of any textual variants popup during the reading of the English Standard Version, which is the preferred translation at the church I have been attending.  The verse that stood out on this Lord’s Day was Romans 14:10.  A further problem with the ESV is that the 2002 edition does not even have a footnote to indicate that the text has been changed.  I will quote it here in both translations for your reading:

“But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.” (Romans 14:10, KJV 1900)

“Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God;” (Romans 14:10, ESV)

The Greek readings are as follows:

“σὺ δὲ τί κρίνεις τὸν ἀδελφόν σου; ἢ καὶ σὺ τί ἐξουθενεῖς τὸν ἀδελφόν σου; πάντες γὰρ παραστησόμεθα τῷ βήματι τοῦ Χριστοῦ.” (Romans 14:10, Scrivener 1881)

“συ δε τι κρινεις τον αδελφον σου η και συ τι εξουθενεις τον αδελφον σου παντες γαρ παραστησομεθα τω βηματι του χριστου” (Romans 14:10, Stephens 1550) 

“συ δε τι κρινεις τον αδελφον σου η και συ τι εξουθενεις τον αδελφον σου παντες γαρ παραστησομεθα τω βηματι του χριστου” (Romans 14:10, BYZ)

 

“Σὺ δὲ τί κρίνεις τὸν ἀδελφόν σου; ἢ καὶ σὺ τί ἐξουθενεῖς τὸν ἀδελφόν σου; πάντες γὰρ παραστησόμεθα τῷ βήματι τοῦ θεοῦ,” (Romans 14:10, NA28)

The textual evidence supporting the readings in the critical editions of the Greek New Testament is not as well attested as they pretend, because the critics are using the reasoned eclecticism approach to textual criticism.  That method involves numerous presupposed principles or axioms of interpretation and reconstruction.  The chosen reading of God rather than Christ has fewer manuscripts, though the critics prefer so-called “earlier” evidences.  In fact, Sinaiticus has the Christ reading, not God.  But the critics say that Sinaiticus has an earlier reading of God which has been corrected by a later reading of Sinaiticus.  Metzger indicates that Sinaiticus was written on parchment.  Apparently, this means that the parchment was erased and written over so that the Greek word for God was replaced by the word for Christ.

It took some time for me to figure this out because the apparatus symbols can be hard to understand without researching the introductions to the various critical editions of the Greek New Testament.  For example, the United Bible Societies, 4^th edition, which I have in hardcopy, lists the evidences for their preferred reading of God first, and then the list of evidences for the reading of Christ second.  The hardcopy I have of the 26^th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament lists the readings for Christ first and the readings for God second, although the preferred reading in the 26^th edition is also God, not Christ.  However, the symbols determine how the apparatus is to be interpreted. 

To save time, I will show you the textual note in the 28^th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, and then explain how I concluded that the critics believe that Sinaiticus was altered by a later redactor:

 

⸀ Χριστου א² C² L P Ψ 048. 0209. 33. 81. 104. 365. 1175. 1241. 1505. 1881 [Majority Text symbol] r vg^cl sy; Polyc Mcion^T Ambst

¦ txt א* A B C* D F G 630. 1506. 1739 lat co

Beginning at the far left of the quote, you can see the ⸀ symbol.  This indicates that the Greek word immediately following is indicated in other manuscripts with variants.  Immediately after that we see the Hebrew letter for aleph with a superscript number 2:  א².  The aleph is the symbol for Codex Sinaiticus.  The subscript number 2 indicates that this is a second corrector, meaning that the critics think that the word for God was erased and replaced by the word for Christ.  Now if you look at the line underneath you will see the aleph symbol with an asterisk: א*.  The abbreviation "txt" indicates that this is the reading chosen for the main body of the eclectic Greek New Testament.  The asterisk is supposed to indicate that this is the original reading in the autographs using the principles or axioms of the science of textual criticism:

 

The original reading of a manuscript (when the reading of a manuscript has been corrected); correlative with ^c or ^1,2,3.  (Footnote from the UBS 5^th edition).

 

The other symbols in both lines are other manuscript evidences.  As you can see, the list of evidences supporting the reading of Christ is much longer, while the bottom line shows only a few manuscripts that support the critical edition of the Greek New Testament rather than the Textus Receptus or the Byzantine reading.

But why is this the case?  I’m glad you asked.  According to Metzger, this is because the older and better manuscripts support the God reading rather than the Christ reading:

 

14:10     θεοῦ {B}

At an early date (Marcion Polycarp Tertullian Origen) the reading θεοῦ, which is supported by the best witnesses (א* A B C* D G 1739 al), was supplanted by Χριστοῦ, probably because of influence from 2 Cor 5:10 (ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ βήματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ).

Metzger, Bruce Manning, United Bible Societies. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.). London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994. Print.

I am using the Logos edition here.  However, I do have the 2^nd edition of the same work in hardcopy, and the quote is identical.  You will note that Metzger does not do anything other than assert that his witnesses are the best witnesses.  And even the reading of theou or θεοῦ is at best rated only with a B, meaning that only three out of the four committee members voted that God is the original word there.  It’s also interesting that Metzger admits that other passages in the New Testament support the reading of Christ.  Another problem with Metzger’s comment is that the 28^th edition of the NA Greek New Testament says that Polycarp, Marcion and Tertullian all support the reading of Christ, not God.  So Metzger deliberately equivocates by placing in parentheses the church fathers as if they support the critical reading, which they do not.  Ambrosiaster, another church father, also supports the reading of Christ.  Marcion was reported by Tertullian as reading this verse with the word Christ.  Although the church fathers are not the final authority, the fact that 2^nd and 3^rd century church fathers support the received text reading is important.

Notice that the context of 2 Corinthians 5:10 and Romans 14:10 both deal with Christians who are members of the visible church.  The great white throne judgment in Revelation 20:11-15  deals with the general judgment of the wicked to execute their just punishments.  The vast majority of Evangelicals have interpreted the judgment seat of Christ to mean that elect Christians who belong to the invisible church will be judged according to their rewards in heaven.

Even the great Princeton theologian, Charles Hodge, although studied in textual criticism, judged that the original autographs read “Christ” and not “God”:

 

Instead of χριστοῦ, at the close verse, the MSS. A. D. E. F. G. read θεοῦ, which is adopted by Mill, Lachmann, and Tischendorf. The common reading is supported by the great majority of the MSS., most of the ancient versions, and almost all the Fathers. It is therefore retained by most critical editors.

Hodge, Charles. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. New Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Louis Kregel, 1882. Print.  [Footnote on Romans 14:10].

 

In view of the fact that the various editions of the Textus Receptus read Christ, and the fact that the Byzantine Majority Text reads the same, I judge that by God’s providence the Reformers were led to accept the received text as the original.  The reasoned eclecticism of the “science” of textual criticism cannot use reason to reconstruct the originals without using presupposed principles or axioms imposed on the process.  How do we know that the shorter and more rough reading is the original? 

As I pointed out in an earlier blog post, textual criticism is an external authority imposed on the text.  Scripture itself is self-authenticating.  This means that the plowboy and the housewife can trust what God has in His providence given us in the Textus Receptus of the Greek New Testament and the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Old Testament.  Furthermore, the King James translation, although not itself inspired, is faithful to the original languages and is therefore superior to modern translations which alter the readings of the Bible to fit with liberal presuppositions and specuations such as the one offered by Bruce Metzger above.  The King James authorized version has been the most read and most used translation of the Bible for over 400 years.  While it is sometimes helpful to laypersons to read more modern translations, they should do so with the awareness of where those translations came from and what the biases of the translators are.  I recommend the New King James Version as the best comparison Bible.

A further advantage of reading the King James Version or the perhaps the Geneva Bible, is that the proof texts in the Reformed confessions, like the 1647 Edinburgh edition of the Westminster Confession of Faith, are more in sync with what the Westminster divines were reading in their English translations.  This is also true of the 1647 editions of the Larger and Shorter Catechisms.

May the peace of God be with you all.

 

---

Logical Problems with Textual Criticism as Related to Biblical Inerrancy

 

Logical Problems with Textual Criticism as Related to Biblical Inerrancy

 

The ongoing disputes between the reasoned eclecticism text critics and the Byzantine Majority text critics has led to something of a comeback of the defense of the traditional and confessional view that the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus is the best representation of what the original autographs contained.  Some in the modern textual criticism camp, also known as reasoned eclecticism, have accused the confessional view supporters of being part of the King James Only controversy.  However, the confessionalists uphold only that the Westminster Confession of Faith affirms that the original Hebrew and Greek texts are the authentically preserved copies of what the original autographs contained:

 

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;(a) so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them.(b) But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,(c) therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,(d) that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner,(e) and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.(f) 

[Westminster Confession of Faith.  Chapter 1.  Of the Holy Scripture.  Paragraph VIII.]

 

The recently formed Reformation Bible Society is in agreement with the Trinitarian Bible Society on the doctrine of the preservation of the authentical text.  The apparent controversy also includes the fact that the Reformation Bible Society and the Trinitarian Bible Society both prefer the authorized King James translation of the biblical texts.  Furthermore, the RBS and the TBS both affirm the Bomberg edition of the Masoretic Hebrew text and the Scrivener’s edition of the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament as the authoritative biblical texts.  There are very few differences between the Stephanus edition of the Textus Receptus and the Scrivener’s edition.  There are also a few minor differences between the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia edition of the Hebrew Old Testament and the Bomberg edition, which dates to the Reformation period.

However, I wish to discuss the more pressing issue of biblical inerrancy in regards to these disputes.  This problem also relates to the dispute about the archetypal knowledge of God, known only to Himself, and the ectypal knowledge of God as it is revealed to humanity.  Suffice it to say that biblical revelation or special revelation is in the ectypal realm of epistemology.  The dispute between the late Dr. Gordon H. Clark and the late Dr. Cornelius Van Til had to do with this issue, although Gordon Clark never directly addressed the archetypal/ectypal distinction.  Clark’s view was that the Bible is univocally the very words of God, while Van Til argued that the Bible is only analogically the inspired word of God.  I have written numerous articles on my blog on this topic, so I will not go into great detail here.  Clark’s major concern was that the theologians in the Van Til camp had unwittingly crossed over into the liberal views promoted by neo-orthodoxy and Barthianism.  Emil Brunner was also a controversial theologian of neo-orthodoxy, though he disagreed with Barth’s rejection of natural revelation.

A further bit of information about Dr. Gordon H. Clark is that he was one of the founders of the Evangelical Theological Society in 1949.  In more recent times some critics of the society have said that the requirement of a commitment to biblical inerrancy to join the ETS is not meaningful because there is no other doctrinal statement to affirm in order to become a member.  The official doctrinal basis is stated as,

“The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.”

[The Evangelical Theological Society.]

In fairness to Dr. Clark and the other founders, at the time of the establishment of the ETS, there were far less doctrinal differences between supporters of biblical inerrancy than what exists today.  Unfortunately, some modern members of the ETS society are less than orthodox by some accounts.  Moreover, a weakness of the Reformation Bible Society is that there is no mention of any requirement to affirm biblical inerrancy, since none of the required confessional statements mention inerrancy specifically.  The perceived advantage of limiting the ETS statement to biblical inerrancy and the trinity was perhaps misplaced.  However, the knife cuts both ways; The Reformation Bible Society should have some requirement for adherence to the fundamentals of the Evangelical faith in addition to the confessional requirements.  This is true because at the time of the Westminster Confession of Faith and other confessional statements plenary verbal inspiration and biblical inerrancy were not the issues that they are today.  In short, the problem goes way beyond the dispute over the providential preservation of the original autographs in the extant apographs.  The inspiration and the infallibility and the inerrancy of Scripture are at stake as well.

The accusation of some opponents of the Trinitarian Bible Society and the Reformation Bible Society that the two societies are essentially KJV only advocates is misleading.  The reason is that the KJVO or King James Only movement affirms that the KJV is an inspired and inerrant translation of the Bible from the original Hebrew and Greek.  The RBS and the TBS societies do not make that assertion.  They affirm that the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus authentically preserve the original autographs.  But even this distinction avoids a problem of all three major Evangelical positions.  The three major positions are:  1)  reasoned eclecticism;  2)  reasoned majority text reconstruction; and 3) the providentially preserved and authentical Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.  The problem of all three positions is that if only the original autographs--which no one possesses today--are the inspired autographs, then it logically follows that nothing we have today is the exact reduplication of the original inspired and inerrant autographs, including the “authentical” text. 

Although the confession affirms that the authentical text has been kept pure in all ages, it does not show how that reduplicates the originally inspired autographs.  By all accounts, there are minor differences or variants even between the Bomberg Masoretic Text and the later editions based on the Leningrad Masoretic Text such as the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia.  Critics of the Textus Receptus have pointed out that there are several different editions dating back to the Complutensian Polyglot of 1514 and at least 5 editions of Erasmus’ Textus Receptus.  (See: Editions of the Textus Receptus.)   Additionally, there are variants between the many editions of the Textus Receptus of the Greek New Testament.  (See:  Variants between the Textus Receptus and the KJV.  See also:  TR variants.)

The problem here is that if we are to affirm the plenary verbal inspiration of the Bible and the inerrancy of the Bible, there are obviously spelling differences at a bare minimum, not counting the variations in wording.  The Bible obviously implies that there are no spelling errors in the text:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matthew 5:18 KJV)

There are fewer variants in the editions of the Hebrew Masoretic Text, but variants do exist.  I do not have access to a Bomberg edition of the Hebrew Masoretic Text.  However, in the textual apparatus of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia there is a textual variant that supports the King James translation of Psalm 22:16.  Liberal critics have often attacked the KJV as using the Septuagint translation of the verse to support the prophecy of the crucifixion.  However, the variant reads as a verb for pierced rather than the word for lion.  The difference is between a yod, which would make the word mean lion, and a waw, which would render the Hebrew word as a verb, meaning pierced or dug. 

(Ps. 22:17 WTT)  כִּ֥י סְבָב֗וּנִי כְּלָ֫בִ֥ים עֲדַ֣ת מְ֭רֵעִים  הִקִּיפ֑וּנִי כָּ֜אֲרִ֗י יָדַ֥י וְרַגְלָֽי׃

The apparatus for the BHS lists this variant from the second edition of Kennicott, which is from the Bomberg edition of the Hebrew Masoretic Text:  כארוּ

Most of this evidence points to the fact that no one today has any original copy of the autographs.  Therefore, there must be a decision made as to the standard text of the Hebrew and Greek Bibles used for translation.  The Westminster Confession of Faith 1647 seems to indicate that that would be the first editions of the Masoretic Text available in that time and the editions of the Textus Receptus available to the Westminster divines of that period.  The variants in these editions are much fewer in number than either the reasoned eclecticism view of the modern textual critics or the Byzantine Majority approach of Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont.  In short, the critics who say that the KJV utilized the Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint or LXX to translate Psalm 22:16 are wrong.  The Bomberg edition of the Masoretic Text shows clearly that the KJV translators used only the Masoretic Text for the translation of this verse.

Furthermore, I would conclude that everyone involved in all three major positions are evading the fact that they are starting with unproved starting points.  Dr. Gordon H. Clark called these axioms.  He once said that everyone is a fideist.  By that he meant that everyone has presuppositions or unproved starting points.  Some critics call this circular reasoning.  But if so, then everyone is guilty of circular reasoning at some point in their arguments.  Clark was simply being honest.  Also, Clark once asked the question that if the atheist or the liberal has unproved starting points, why criticize the Christian for starting with the Bible as the main axiom?

Most critics of the late Dr. Gordon H. Clark’s apologetics fail to make a crucial distinction between his theological arguments and his apologetical arguments.  In some instances, Clark, utilizing his training in philosophy, uses a socratic method of argument.  In such instances, Clark liked to use the reductio ad absurdum approach.  This approach reduces the opponent’s objections to absurdity.  While Clark did not always build his own case to a point of undeniable proof, he was often successful at showing how the other side was blatantly contradictory.  On the confessional and fundamental doctrines and theology of the Christian faith as a system of propositional truth, Dr. Clark was without doubt extremely orthodox.  Clark, however, admitted that he sometimes made mistakes in logic.  Apologetics can get extremely detailed.  Clark liked to point out that there are many battle fronts in a war.  Not every individual can fight every battle front; so, there are limitations on what one person can do in one lifetime.  This does not even touch on the fact that many persons change their views on particular issues over time.  This was true of the church father, Augustine of Hippo, as well; his Retractions are evidence of this.

The short answer to all of this is that the Scriptures are self-authenticating.  In other words, it is a matter of faith to believe that what you are reading is God’s inspired, inerrant and infallible word.  The Westminster Confession of Faith says as much:

V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture;(a) and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.(b)

Westminster Confession of Faith:  Chapter 1, paragraph 5.  Of the Holy Scripture.

Notice here that the testimony of the church moves us to this conclusion.  Also, we learn from reading the Bible that the doctrine is efficacious.  The style is majestic.  All of the parts of Scripture consent to a unity, a scope of the whole.  “Notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.” 

Dr. Clark was once asked how the Christian knows that the Bible is the Word of God and not the Koran?  His answer was that the Christian has been born again and the Muslim has not been born again.  Can we prove any of this using evidentialism, empiricism, or unregenerate reasoning?  The answer is obviously no.

Herein lies another problem for the reasoned eclecticism utilized by Dr. James White, Dr. Daniel Wallace, and others.  The problem is that they are placing another authority above Scripture, namely the alleged “science” of textual criticism.  Is the Christian supposed to suspend his or her faith commitments in order to prove or disprove the portions of the Bible that critics question?  If so, then the Bible itself is always subject to question.  If there are one or two errors in the Bible, then the entire Bible is in question.

This raises another question:  which Bible translation is self-authenticating?  I for one do not trust the reasoned eclectic approach to Scripture.  I read mostly the New King James Version or the King James Version of the Bible.  That’s because the authorized King James Version has stood the test of time, despite some translation issues here and there.  Why would I trust a translation that has to constantly be revised according to an ever-changing science of textual criticism which never arrives at the truth?  Why presuppose that there are errors in the Bible?  A believer should instead presuppose that the Bible is God-breathed, without error, and infallible in every doctrinal point, especially the doctrine that God is the ultimate author of every single word of it.  Does the plowboy or the housewife need to read Greek and Hebrew or study textual criticism?  I doubt it.  Instead of questioning everything as James White and Dan Wallace does, why can’t we just presuppose that the confessional view established in Westminster Confession chapter 1 is true?  In that case, we need not consult modern translations to find out what the NKJV or the KJV and other translations based on the confessional view got wrong.  Presuppositionalism does not need to prove that the Bible is true.  Although technically speaking no translation is totally without error, we can trust that insofar as the KJV is faithful to the authentical texts in the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus it is the inspired and inerrant word of God for the reader.  The KJV is an acceptable translation for public preaching and teaching.

At some point the Christian must move on from evidentialism to a position of being convinced that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.  Without the Bible there is no Christianity at all.

 

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. (Ps. 12:6-7 KJV)

In a future post I will examine the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and point out what I think are weaknesses or errors in that document.  There needs to be more clarification on the doctrines of preservation, inspiration, and the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture.

 

 

 

 

Divine Simplicity, Incomprehensibility, Thomistic Dualism and Biblical Inerrancy

". . . 'The supreme Judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined . . . can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.'  

"Unfortunately the visible churches that have descended from the Protestant Reformation, especially the larger and wealthier denominations, have to a considerable degree repudiated the Bible."

Gordon H. Clark.  What Do Presbyterians Believe?  pp. 24-25.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2 Tim. 3:16 KJV)

Recently, I was listening to several YouTube videos on the issue of divine simplicity.  It became apparent to me that the Thomistic doctrine has a problem that Dr. Gordon H. Clark called a dual view of truth.  Most of the advocates of the modernized doctrine of divine simplicity have over-emphasized the transcendance of God to the point that nothing can be known of God's archetypal knowledge whatsoever.  Divine simplicity's most basic assertion is that all that is in God's archetypal being is God himself.  The attributes of God are therefore only identifiable from below or from an ectypal understanding of God. 

The Westminster Confession of Faith does indeed insist that God is not a collection of parts or a composite of parts.  The problem, however, is when these same theologians say that God's mercy and God's wrath are the same thing.  God is love.  (1 John 4:7-8).  Is God's love really the same thing as God's justice and God's wrath?  I don't think so.  But does the doctrine of divine simplicity entail that distinctions cannot be made in God's being without His being a composite of parts?  Dr. Gordon H. Clark defined God as the system of propositions that God thinks.  Within the Godhead or divine essence there are three distinct Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  All three Persons are the same God.  If we take the divine simplicity model too far, that would imply that Cornelius Van Til's view of God as both one Person and Three Persons would not matter.  All that is God is God.  This would entail direct contradictions in the Godhead.

Although God is a simple Being, who cannot be divided into composite parts, does this mean that God cannot be defined?  If so, then we have a problem with Scripture, because it is from the propositions in the Bible that we know anything about God at all.  This raises another question.  Is God incomprehensible?  Before we can answer the question, the word "incomprehensible" must be defined.  Dr. Clark defined the word as immeasurable, not unknowable.  Typically, the neo-orthodox view has it that God is so totally transcendent that He cannot be known except through an existential encounter, not through a rational understanding of information in the Bible:

". . . Schleiermacher, Ritschl, and modernism substituted religious experience for the Word of God.  The neo-orthodox also deny the truth of the Bible and substitute something called an existential encounter.  They fail to tell us how this experience determines the number of the sacraments, the mode of baptism, the principles of church government, or even the doctrine of the Atonement. Without such information controversies of religion can be settled only by majority vote, that is, by the whims or ambitions of ecclesiatical politicians.  No wonder there is talk of church union with Rome.  Without information from God, men are left to their own devices."  

Dr. Gordon H. Clark.  What Do Presbyterians Believe?  The Westminster Confession Yesterday and Today.  1965.  (Trinity Foundation:  Unicoi, 2001).  P. 25. 

Frances Turretin did articulate a distinction between the archetypal and ectypal knowledge of God.  I cannot remember exactly what Gordon Clark said about this distinction, so that will have to wait for another blog post.  However, Clark and Cornelius Van Til had a serious disagreement over whether or not God's knowledge and our knowledge coincide at any single point.  Van Til said no, and Clark said yes.  In fact, Clark went further than that and insisted that the Bible is univocally the very words of God in a logical and propositional form.  Van Til, on the other hand, following Turretin and Aquinas, insisted that God's archetypal knowledge and our ectypal knowledge do not coincide at any single point.  Clark, utilizing the illustration of geometry, insisted that parallel lines continue into infinity and into eternity in both directions without ever intersecting at any single point.  Following this logic then, there could be no coincidence at any single point between God's knowledge and our knowledge whatsoever.  The implications of a Thomistic dualism, then, would be that the Bible is not really God-breathed or even the Word of God.  It could only be a human book based on human logic and a human existential encounter with God.  In other words, it would mean that only God knows any divine information, and this information is known only to God in His archetypal knowledge.

I have even heard Dr. James White say that only God knows what the original autographs say, and God knows this in His archetypal knowledge.  The problem here involves the doctrines of both divine inspiration and biblical inerrancy/infallibility.  If the Bible is merely a human book on the ectypal level, then it logically follows that it could contain errors.  The problem is even worse when we consider the issue of reasoned eclecticism in regards to the textual criticism of both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Even Dr. Richard Mueller has not taken such a strong stance against any interaction between God's archetypal and God's ectypal knowledge:

The issue, here, is a direct reflection of the language of the Reformed prolegomena: the ultimate and therefore perfect archetypal theology is identical with the divine mind—all other theology is, at best, a reflection of this archetype, a form of ectypal theology. Ectypal theology in the human subject (in all systems of theology!) is not only finite and reflective but also limited by human sinfulness and by the mental capacities of the theologian.165 The human author of theology, thus, has little intrinsic authority. If theology is to be authoritative, its source (other than the mind of the theologian) must carry authority with it. That source cannot be the divine archetype, but it must stand in a more direct relation to that archetype than any utterly human effort: the doctrine of inspiration leads, therefore, in many of the orthodox systems, directly to the doctrine of the authority of Scripture.

Muller, Richard A. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy;  Volume 2: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003. Print.  Page 261.  [Emphasis is mine.]

The point here is that if the archetypal knowledge of God is known only to Him, how could ectypal knowledge be a reflection of what is totally unknowable?  Gordon H. Clark distinguished between God's intuitive knowledge and human discursive knowledge.  He also agreed with the proposition that the noetic effects of sin causes errors in logic and, most likely, in theology as well.  But is it really true that 2 + 2 = 4 is the same thing as God's love in God's archetypal knowledge?  How do you know? 

Now, as this relates to the issue of biblical inspiration and biblical inerrancy/infallibility, I would like to raise the problem of textual criticism, reasoned eclecticism, and presuppositional apologetics.  I will delve more into this issue in future posts.  However, for now I would like to ask a few questions.  If the original autographs are only a reflection of the archetypal knowledge of God and can only be known through ectypal reflection and condescension to the human level, and if we do not have the original autographs, does it not follow that there are at least two problems with the doctrine of biblical inspiration and biblical inerrancy?  First of  all, if we do not have the original autographs, we are left with either a reasoned eclectical reconstruction of the autographs by way of a fallible "science" of textual criticism, or we are left with an equally reasoned reconstruction of the autographs from the extant Byzantine majority texts.  Thus, both the critical eclecticism and the reasoned Byzantine text reconstruction are based on some form of textual criticism.  Both positions argue that the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Textus Receptus of the New Testament are flawed.  

So, that logically means that no manuscripts extant today are without error.  How then can a theoretical biblical inerrancy exist at all?  Logically, it must be as unknowable as God's archetypal knowledge.  In that case, Bart Ehrman's argument that the autographs cannot be reconstructed must be true.  James White has argued that the autographs are available in the critical apparatus of the eclectic editions of the Greek New Testament.  But does this not lead to a form of relativism where the informed reader of the critical editions of the Greek New Testament picks and chooses which variant is the original?  Absolute truth is unchanging, yet we have a constantly changing series of translations based on an ever-changing eclectic Greek New Testament.   And, as Maurice Robinson has noted, the reasoned eclectic approach often stitches together disparate fragments to produce a text that does not exist in any extant manuscript of any kind.  The options keep changing from one variant to the next in a constant flux of possibilities, which leads to relativism, not certainty.

But is there another option?  Gordon H. Clark proposed that Scripture is the axiom of Christianity.  Without the Bible there is no basis for Christianity at all.  But more about this in a future post.